Janney contends that Kennedy's philosophy of pacifism was antithetical to the CIA's vision of world dominance, and because of JFK's threat to "shatter the agency into a thousand pieces," the president had to be assassinated to protect the country from a threat they felt he didn't understand or take seriously enough. This coup de tat represented a fundamental shift in governance. Most interestingly, Janney paints a picture of a CIA with ever expanding influence, to the point where they have unilateral control on society:

@21:07

"Of course, no one knew how about bad it was until Watergate. It was really at the time of the Watergate era that people began to wake up and realize, 'My god, the CIA has been acting unilaterally, as if it was it's own country. There aren't any checks and balances here. They lie all the time to us in terms of any raining in on the part of congress.' And so, all the sudden, after Watergate, it became very fashionable to, in a sense, disassociate oneself from the CIA."

Later, Rockwell asked, "Is the CIA much worse today? Is the American government in a sense the U.S. of the CIA?..."

@23:49

"This is a huge conflict, because every nation state has the right to collect intelligence as a way to protect itself. And so, you have to step back and look clearly at what the limits of that can be. If you are going to get into the arena where state sponsored murder is okay, then I think you've crossed the line where there is no more democracy.* There's basically a plutocracy or an oligarchy that wants to stay in control by any means necessary."

As "National Security" gained increasing prominence in the role of foreign and domestic policy, we began to see the results in the form of CIA assassinations and coups worldwide, This control quickly turned inward, begetting illegal wiretapping and spying on citizens at home, and assassinations of politicians and activist leaders domestically. All of these despicable actions were performed on a unilateral basis, with no authority or oversight. Any part of government is subject to corruption- and the National Security apparatus acted in the interests of a power oligarchy hell-bent on domination of the world at any cost.

Confronting this reality is both difficult and prescient- as we have watched the liberties we have cherished dissolve in the post-9/11 atmosphere. The National Security State, where you are guilty until proven innocent and dissent is viewed as dangerous, is the ultimate end for those who would like total control over society. Clearly, dismantling this apparatus is crucial to restoring liberty and rule of law in society.

* I am not sure why he uses the word "democracy" here. We were founded as a republic, but many progressives desire democracy- and use the word to describe our political order. That said, I would agree that in the last century we have regressed to more of a democracy. This is unfortunate, as the following video shows, and the results are the predicable outcome of oligarchy that Janney describes above: